Mueller Probe Set To Fail Under Article II

[protectionist]

And the SC is not an inferior officer, either, Protectionist.

Show us in Law where that office is an inferior office.

You can't.

Nothing trumps the Constitution. Nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, protectionist, for admitting that you cannot show that Mueller is an inferior officer iaw Article II of the Constitution.

Every time you mention Clinton you admit you are losing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

protectionist, you protesteth too much.

 

[protectionist]

Thank you, protectionist, for admitting that you cannot show that Mueller is an inferior officer iaw Article II of the Constitution.

Every time you mention Clinton you admit you are losing.

I DON'T HAVE TO show anything about Mueller, other than Trump didn't pick him, so therefore he has no Constitutional authority to do anything more than any ordinary citizen, ie, to cast an opinion. "Inferior officer" is not the point.

THIS is the point >> . and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, ..."

Spin it if you think that will do something for you, but whatever you try to spin, the appointment of a special counsel falls into >> "all other Officers of the United States," as the job of the PRESIDENT to nominate, not some Asst AG.

 

[protectionist]

Thank you JakeStarkey, for showing the public how dishonest the left is. Hillary did that in 2016. Now you (et al) are doing it. Good ambassador for the right, you are.

 

[protectionist]

"Scandalous" to protect our nation and our electoral process?

That's not why the Obamans did it. They did it just to try to (unfairly) win the 2016 election.

 

[Crepitus]

"Scandalous" to protect our nation and our electoral process?

That's not why the Obamans did it. They did it just to try to (unfairly) win the 2016 election.

Good god man, leave some koolaide for the rest of the kids!

 

[PredFan]

Lefties are some of the stupidest people I've ever seen.

Lol, ^the words of someone who can't think of anything intelligent to say but still wants to be heard. Just like a little kid they are.

I submit the left wing posts in this thread as Exhibit A. I rest my case.

 

[iceberg]

The "Appointments Clause" provides that "principal officers" must be appointed by the President with the Senate's consent." But the Mueller team was given "special status" to several prosecutors on his team, by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in their probe of former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort, the entire investigation may be invalidated, thus "unconstitutional!"
The self-inflicted "catch-22" scenario by Rosenstein giving unlimited power to Mueller is exactly what the "Appointments Clause" under Article II of the Constitution was designed to prevent.
The Mueller attorneys presiding over the Manafort case before Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III, in Alexandria, VA., may have violated Article II of the Constitution because they not only represented the office of the special counsel, but also simultaneously considered "Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys." Therefore Mueller, (who's the direct supervisor) should be legally considered a "roving" U.S. Attorney.
Now here's where it gets dicey, under the Constitution only the President can nominate all "principal officers," including U.S. attorneys and cabinet members. However Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Moreover, Rosenstein is a "political appointee" and as such was never "confirmed" by the Senate, as anyone serving as a U.S. attorney by law must, thus the entire investigation may be invalid. The case can be made that Rosenstein usurped the authority of the President of the United States to nominate whoever he wants as a prosecutor. Mr. Mueller is serving unconstitutionally in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution because of the way Rod Rosenstein appointed him. All attorneys involved could openly challenge whatever subpoenas the Mueller team throws out, to raise as a defense, the Appointments Clause in court.
This Mueller probe has been illegal since the start and is set to ultimately fail. This isn't a dodge by the Right, just another example of how desperate the Left is to try to hang this President any way they can to nullify his election.

they're just trolling the shit out of us using our own fears against us. we're letting them do it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, I didn't. Have you actually read the Appointments clause?

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

You understand that the (Acting) Attorney General is the "head" of a "department", right?

I posted it quite a while back, and I always read what I post. Sure I read it. And as I told you >> The words "inferior officers" is part of Article II., They refer to what CONGRESS can do (not some Asst AG) Yes, I understand quite well. Do you ?

"the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers,..."

Yes, that's what it says - and Congress did just that, back in 1966.

28 U.S. Code § 515 - Authority for legal proceedings; commission, oath, and salary for special attorneys

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, protectionist, for admitting that you cannot show that Mueller is an inferior officer iaw Article II of the Constitution.

Every time you mention Clinton you admit you are losing.

I DON'T HAVE TO show anything about Mueller, other than Trump didn't pick him, so therefore he has no Constitutional authority to do anything more than any ordinary citizen, ie, to cast an opinion. "Inferior officer" is not the point.

THIS is the point >> . and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, ..."

Spin it if you think that will do something for you, but whatever you try to spin, the appointment of a special counsel falls into >> "all other Officers of the United States," as the job of the PRESIDENT to nominate, not some Asst AG.

Yes, you do, but, no, you can't. Spin it anyway you want, but you are trapped.

 

[protectionist]

The Trump campaign's criminal activity was "unprecedented and scandalous."

That's what the Hillary campaign was. And not just the spying. There was also the cover-up of all her crimes. There was the cheating in the debates, There was Democrat mayors (ex. Sam Liccardo in San Jose) allowing thugs to attack Trump rally goers. And there was the numerous, deceitful Hillary TV ads (ex. Khizir Khan, McCain, outsourcing, the disabled reporter, etc)

 

[protectionist]

Yes, that's what it says - and Congress did just that, back in 1966.

28 U.S. Code § 515 - Authority for legal proceedings; commission, oath, and salary for special attorneys

That's nice. But it doesn't have damn thing to do with Mueller being appointed by an Asst AG, when only the President or Congress can do that.

 

[protectionist]

Yes, you do, but, no, you can't. Spin it anyway you want, but you are trapped.

You've already hung yourself. Just displaying the lying left. Every time you post, it's a victory for the right.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, that's what it says - and Congress did just that, back in 1966.

28 U.S. Code § 515 - Authority for legal proceedings; commission, oath, and salary for special attorneys

That's nice. But it doesn't have damn thing to do with Mueller being appointed by an Asst AG, when only the President or Congress can do that.

You keep repeating that, but it's simply not true.

As an "inferior" officer, the appointments clause gives Congress the power to vest appointment power in department heads. Congress did exactly that. Therefore, the AG (or acting AG, in this case) has the power to appoint Special Counsels.

It's that simple.

 

[protectionist]

You are misreading it. Actually I'm.betting you haven't read it at all and are relying on Alex Jones's interpretation of it.

YOU KNOW I've read it, and YOU KNOW the Mueller thing is unconstitutional, because you know that only the president or congress can appoint Mueller, not an Asst Attorney General. Ho hum. Liberals showing off their dishonesty = more conservative votes. Thanks for the help.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are misreading it. Actually I'm.betting you haven't read it at all and are relying on Alex Jones's interpretation of it.

YOU KNOW I've read it, and YOU KNOW the Mueller thing is unconstitutional, because you know that only the president or congress can appoint Mueller, not an Asst Attorney General. Ho hum. Liberals showing off their dishonesty = more conservative votes. Thanks for the help.

Here's the text of the appointments clause. I think you missed some important details, that I've highlighted for you.

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

[protectionist]

You keep repeating that, but it's simply not true.

As an "inferior" officer, the appointments clause gives Congress the power to vest appointment power in department heads. Congress did exactly that. Therefore, the AG (or acting AG, in this case) has the power to appoint Special Counsels.

It's that simple.

Excuse me, "Congress did exactly that" ? Congress did not appoint Mueller. Asst Ag did.

 

[protectionist]

Here's the text of the appointments clause. I think you missed some important details, that I've highlighted for you.

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I just previously highlighted the same highlighting that you did. Mueller can't be appointed by an Asst AG.

But you know what ? The issue is much bigger. Mueller (who is untrustable to say the least) has no case anyway. The whole thing has blown up in the faces of the Democrats, and the issue now is the Obama/Hillary attempt to destroy the Trump campaign. That's really the issue here , and it's a huuge one.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You keep repeating that, but it's simply not true.

As an "inferior" officer, the appointments clause gives Congress the power to vest appointment power in department heads. Congress did exactly that. Therefore, the AG (or acting AG, in this case) has the power to appoint Special Counsels.

It's that simple.

Excuse me, "Congress did exactly that" ? Congress did not appoint Mueller. Asst Ag did.

You're misreading the appointments clause. Congress doesn't have to appoint inferior officers - the appointments clause allows them to vest that power in department heads. Congress did in fact pass a law granting the power to appoint special counsels to the AG (or acting AG, in cases of recusal).